I am not sure I am ready for this forum...

[jeb]

Rebecca: Glad to have you back. It's not easy even being a human never mind having ideas that others differ with us about or that we're challenged to think differently about when it's kind of scary to do so. Hope you can find a comfort level that lets you explore with the us here even if we do get a bit boisterous at times. And, for what it's worth and only my opinion, I don't think many folks here see things as either black or white. I believe they see that attitude as one of the biggest problems for things are really black and white and every shade of gray in between. The only things that are set in stone are our own minds and hearts when we declare that 'We have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the rest of y'all are a bunch of fools'. There's no hope for understanding there, eh?

Anyway, welcome back.

Be good to yourself, eh?
John

[krwordgazer]

Rebecca, I hope you stick around.

I have a very different perspective from a lot of the others here on many things, too-- but one thing about this place is that pretty much everyone here has shown that they are willing to listen to and respect other viewpoints. We may all express our own views pretty strongly, but if someone else stands up and says, "well, I think differently, and here are my reasons why," then they generally do get listened to.

Where is your perspective on patriocentricity and Quiverful? Where does it differ? I'm sure no one's going to jump on you in your own introduction thread, so let us know what's on your mind! ;D

[phoenix]

Hi Rebecca! Did you post here before as "justrebecca"? What I recall is that you were the one who introduced QF/P beliefs to your marriage/family and were struggling? If I'm right, I was really sad when Vyckie said you deleted your account--I was hoping you would post more since your story as I remember it sounds like mine. As the one who brought the Mary Pride books and Charity tapes etc. into our home and am still trying to make peace with myself, learn to recognize MY wants/feelings/beliefs and not behave or perform in line with somebody else's version of godly, teach my children to be respectful, thinking people. . . Anyway, as KR said we're glad to have you back, I don't think anybody will "jump on you" and we would like to hear more of your story. We are all here for each other.

[jemand]

I enjoyed your posts before (I think you posted under "justrebecca"?) We need different points of view here and I think you do a good job of presenting yours

[lectio]

rebecca,
Though my experience was very different (male dominated, heavily), I have seen exactly what you are talking about in other QF/patrio homes. Momma was the ruler of the house, and though she preached about submission (regularly, regularly), SHE was the empress who must be submitted to, and even her husband was lapping out of her hand.

It seems to me that unstable personalities with a tendancy towards authoritarianism like the Biblical patriarchy/VisionForumesque/QF world and take up rulership there (often abusively so).

There are a lot of other folks there, too, of course, often lured in and/or dragged in and/or pleasantly ambling in by these charismatic leader-types who are convinced that it is God's Way, The End. (For example, many ptherwise super cool women get suckered in by reading Mary Pride or similar type books and are convinced that this is God's way and pull their husband's in with them).

So I just wanted to affirm your opinion that there truly *is* a female-dominated side of the patriarchy world. It wasn't my experience, but, then, I was married to a very leadership oriented (mentally ill, abusive) husband who all the other women wished their husbands would be like because he fit the bill of the ideal patriarchal husband (a "Command Man," type, to draw from Debi Pearl).

Basically, the system itself is very conduscive to anyone with an abusive personality, and the damage done is destructive. While the abusive husband does have more power when all is said and done (since the whole system regularly reminds the wife that she must submit), it in no way takes away from the fact that there are a good number of abusive women involved, sort of over-lords of other women adherants, weilding a surprising level of power!

[tapati]

I hope you will feel comfortable staying and sharing your viewpoint! I am glad you came back. I would never want to see anyone feel like she or he can't share his or her views here. There are lots of perspectives to consider and we all come to these issues with different life experiences. I think we all stand to learn a lot from each other.

[aimai]

Lectio and others—I couldn't agree more. I worked in Nepal, in a true patriarchy, but when a woman got high enough in the system—had enough sons and daughters'-in-law, she could become very powerful. And that dream was enough to keep all women enslaved to an ideology which, for the most part, was very destructive and dismissive of them as people. Lectio's point that an authoritarian system attracts and enables authoritarians, whether they are male or female, is spot on. Clearly a lot of women in Quiverful, just to take one example, feel very empowered and are very much able to control the parts of their lives that they want to control—husbands, children, religious matters. I actually respect that quite a bit. My beef with Quiverful is not that women have lots of children (I love children) or even that women talk about being submissive to their husbands—its clear that's a total fiction in lots of cases and, in any event, I have no quarrell with people living the way they want to live even if they don't want to live in a way I want to live. My problem with patriarchy and quiverful as an example of that is the intense need of adult actors like fathers, mothers, and preachers to dominate and control children and new members to prevent them from excercising true, witting, autonomy.

Its pretty clear that lots of quiverful women—and our gracious hostesses are just two examples of that—come to quiverful and evangelical christianity to control fears and anxieties and real problems that the real world has forced on them. But what starts out as a personal quest for salvation and safety becomes, because of the family orientation and the focus on breeding up children for god, becomes a “folie a famille” in which the family itself becomes a project. Children are seen as a blessing (which they are), and also a necessary bit of property, like a bible or a clean house, which demonstrates the adult man or woman's ritual purity and sacred status. Given the focus on lots of children, the job of the believing man or woman becomes controlling the inherently chaotic and centrifugal forces of lots of children/small spaces/huge personalities within a frightening non religious world. When you read blogs by parents of young children in the movement the emphasis is all on retreating from the world, protecting the children from frightening outside influences and—ultimately--preventing the children from making the same mistakes that the parents made (or think they made) in being part of the outside world. The children's rights to self determination—to a full education, to medical treatment, to exploration of ideas, to chosing a religious denomination, to full citizenship and humanity in the modern world is not only denied it is prevented. I object to that.

aimai

[Vyckie D. Garrison]

Jul 31, 2009 12:34:42 GMT -5 @rebecca said:

Yes I am justrebecca. I chose that name because it's freeing not to call myself "rebecca Mom to..." Being just myself is freeing. At the same time using a phrase like "Mom of 9" helps others a little in seeing where you are coming from. Or even saying that I am in my early thirties and have nine children will help others to see a little of where we are.

LOL, Rebecca ~ I know what you mean. Here's my old email signature which I used on the QF digest list:

vyckie ~ help meet to Warren, mom to 7arrows4him: Angel Reneé (1985), Berea Joice (1991), Chassé Louise (1992), Hazelle Elizabeth (1996 - our first reversal baby), Kent Andrew (1998), Lydia Jean (our Y2K baby), and David Wesley (2003 - the little Prince)

Notice that everyone's name was capitalized except for mine ~ I was so very humble.

My signature for the unassisted childbirth list I was on was even worse:

vyckie

wife to Warren, mom to Angel Reneé (1985 - c/s "ftp"), Berea Joice (1991 - scheduled c/s), Chassé Louise (1992 - scheduled c/s), Hazelle Elizabeth (1996 - our first reversal baby - attempted homebirth which ended in a very miserable 4th c/s), Kent Andrew (1998 - Home Birth After 4 C-sections!), Lydia Jean (our Y2K baby - hospital VBAC), and David Wesley (2003 - the little Prince - 5th c/s - ack!)

Yeah ~ to my mind at the time, signing just "Vyckie" would've put all the emphasis on ME. Funny though ~ all the extra stuff I added actually was all about me, huh?

Jul 31, 2009 12:34:42 GMT -5 @rebecca said:

I have been a little horrified of stereotypes put forward here a bit. Even in the case of Carri and Benaiah (sp?), where I think Carri, could be much less the victim of her husband, and more the victim of her "sisters" who were encouraging her to have faith, trusting in magical thinking... I have been there, that is a powerful influence, I have been one of those sisters. At the same time everyone's life experiences do colour how they see the world.

Rebecca ~ this has bothered me ever since you first posted here because I believe that in my telling of the NLQ story, I have been more than fair to QFers. I stated from the beginning that *I was the one* who sought out and introduced the QF materials to Warren.

In telling my story, I've made it very clear that Warren went along with the QF/P because I was pushing it on him and he'd most likely have been just as willing to accept an egalitarian sort of relationship if I'd have found that in the bible instead of patriarchy.

I also explained that I was the one pushing for the vasectomy reversal ~ and when I got pregnant, Warren left the decision making regarding birth choices to me ~ sure, we made a show of him being involved in the process, but I am the one who did the research and presented him with options in a way that ensured he would go along with me. I've also made it clear that it was Judy ~ a "sister" ~ who had me so convinced that if I went to the doctor, I'd be jeopardizing my soul. Also, in those days that she spent at our home, Judy trained me ~ and pretty much coached Warren ~ on the whole "husband/father as head and absolute authority" thing which so messed up his relationship with Angel.

I have not wanted to get defensive, Rebecca ~ but it seems that you are not actually reading what I have written. I am not attacking Christians ~ I am not attacking QFers ~ I am not pointing all the blame on the men. I am simply describing what happened to me from my experience ~ which actually does seem quite similar to yours except that, where you saw through what the "sisters" were pressuring you to believe ~ I accepted and embraced the QF/P philosophy wholeheartedly. Too bad for Warren ~ and for Angel.

I am glad that you returned to the forums, Rebecca. It is good that you were able to spot the fallacies and avoid the pitfalls of the QF mindset and lifestyle ~ I do hope you will continue to share your perspective here.

This is not "a quiverfull of snark" (though I do read that board and believe there's a place and a need for that sort of discussion) ~ the commenters here come from a wide range of backgrounds ~ we are here in an atmosphere of mutual respect and it's a safe gathering place for abused and hurting women who have been touched by the QF teachings. No one here is out to condemn or judge anyone. If anything, you'll find an extra measure of tolerance because for the most part, we've all been there, done that ~ and have nothing but compassion and concern for those who are still quivering.

ETA: Rebecca ~ have you read this: 2spb.blogspot.com/2009/04/its-about-vision.html? Nobody here is going to argue with the fact that the "back to patriarchy" movement is in large part being pushed by the women.

[lectio]

(Charity Ministries {oh dear that is another story-I am sorry anyone else has come upon them},

YES!

I brought the tape series home, interested. My husband listened and promptly ordered four sets and passed them around to those he knew. Things got much worse after we went through that series... Hidden woman...? I actually feel sick just thinking about that phase.

[arietty]

Rebecca in some ways you remind me of me, when I was first coming out of the whole QF fundy thing. I would try to read stuff online, ex-fundy sites etc.. but always ended up recoiling at the sarcasm and stereotypes that seemed to be absolutely delicious to those that were just gawking at this life, never having walked it.

One reason I love this forum is the kindness inherant in many of the posters. I love reading about how these kinds of abuses and human failings and need for power exist in other groups outside of conservative Christianity.

I also would like to say that I came to a point where I just had to own some things.

I have 8 kids. This means.. we never go on vacation. It is just TOO hard and expensive.

When my kids first started going to school at least one of them used to beg other children for their recess, to just taste it.. because they had some seriously boring or at times nonexistent snacks and the kids that only had 2 in the family had WONDERS they had never seen before. Yeah I would have bought that stuff too if I had only 2 kids!

Until a few years ago no one ever had their own rooms. This doesn't matter when your kids are little, they LIKE all bunking in together. But when logistics mean your teenage girl is sharing with two little brothers or somesuch this is painful for the teenage girl. This is especially true when she visits someone else's home and sees how even modest income and modestly homed families can allow their children their own room.

When they are all younger sometimes they don't get enough individual attention. Especially when I was pregnant and exhausted, I might be able to give the attention to the squeaky wheel but often the good, quiet child is neglected. When I had my last ones I had teenagers going through dramatic crises and frankly I just wanted them to shut up and go away.. I did NOT have the emotional energy to devote to them I would have had I not been pregnant.

I have guarded the food tables at church events from my children. Not because they were starving but because the simple life embraced by families with lots of kids, out of both necessity and belief, means my children have been simply agog at what other people take for granted.

And believe me I have heard about the humiliation of having horrible recess food, LOL.

I have in the past fit many stereotypes and probably still do.

I find the subject of women leading women in to this lifestyle very interesting and I hope we can explore it more. I know why the lifestyle attracted me.. it gilded the cage I was in, my abusive marriage. I was led there by women writers though I did have the male pastor imprimatur for the whole submissive thing. I read Nancy Campbell (I loved her), Mary Pride, numerous others.. and we women would get together in our home groups and online forums and talk talk talk about how to be submissive. Always there was encouragement to put aside our grievance against our husband or to put aside our fears of ANYTHING.. really we never ever encouraged each other to face reality and name it for what it was.

Still even though it was the women writing and talking and holding out their hands to show others the way once you were in there were plenty of men who had a hand in keeping you there. My husband might have been ambivalent as to birth choices, schooling choices, even birth control but if I had suddenly announced I wanted to get a job or go back to college he would have had the FULL weight of the pastor behind him making sure I understood that a submissive wife didn't step out against their husband on such matters. And the pastor would have (and DID have) the whole church waiting for his word when a couple split up.. if he disapproved of one party well he must know something and he must be right. But usually it was just the fact that a woman said, "No". "I am not living like this." That was all it took for all hell to break loose. I think a lot of patriarchal men fear this because if one woman leaves and makes her own life without being dependent on a man what is keeping other women from doing so? Suddenly the complaints or discontent of their own wife doesn't seem so easily ignored.

Well, I've waffled. Yes you are correct, much of the movement is women led. Lets talk about that. What are your ideas as to why this is so?

[charis]

Hi Rebecca,

At the risk of drawing ire, I confess that I've l felt out of place and backed off too. For me, it wasn't the stereotypes (never occurred to me that people could interpret hungry children at a church potluck as though I neglected feeding them enough at home). For me it's the pro-abortion atmosphere. Here, a late term abortion doctor is a "martyr". (not that I would EVER support killing him, mind you, but I judge there must be something pretty cold and heartless about a man who can do this every day for money) and it seems double minded to me to be so upset and concerned about the gestating baby who dies or is put at risk by the QF mother's lack of medical intervention, while lauding as saintly a doctor who would kill the same baby for hire.

I have 8 children plus 3 in heaven. I've had 3 early miscarriages. When I am carrying a child in my womb, he/she is alive and worthy of being valued. When I held a tiny lifeless 3 month gestation son in my hand, I grieved.

People who are QF minded tend to be strongly pro-life and against abortion. In response to a comment on another thread, I was thinking about my own identity- was I QF? I decided I was and am still QF, because I "allowed the Lord to control our family size". I have come out from under the oppressiveness and abuse now and renounced a lot of bad doctrine, but my quiver is full of 8 wonderful precious people and I have no regrets about being a vessel for their entry into the world.

[arietty]

Aug 6, 2009 7:34:58 GMT -5 @charis said:

and it seems double minded to me to be so upset and concerned about the gestating baby who dies or is put at risk by the QF mother's lack of medical intervention, while lauding as saintly a doctor who would kill the same baby for hire.

FWIW Charis I completely agree with you. What if Carri's response to her *stress and oppression* (this is for the purpose of this question, I don't presume to know she felt like that) was to say NO, I cannot do this again.. and to have an abortion. Why would it be okay for her to choose to have her baby terminated in the womb but somehow not okay for her to not see a doctor when she was having a difficult pregnancy? It just gets ridiculous. There are many things about abortion I think ridiculous, such as when folks advocate for animal rights or weep over abandoned puppies but are fine about abortion. There is just a disconnect there I don't get.

I am not QF any longer and I don't actually believe any kind of God wants us to have "open wombs" and allow ourselves to conceive whenever it happens. I don't believe there's anything wrong with that either, just that it is not a divine mandate which is how I see the QF belief.

I am very happy with my 8 children though and when younger women tell me they would love to have a big family I encourage them all the way. Having a big family is way cool I must say (especially when half of them are grown up, LOL!)

[jemand]

Charis, it is illegal to perform abortions at the gestational age Dr. Tiller did so in his state, unless there was a medical reason for it-- severe complications threatening the health of the mother, fetuses with genetic defects incompatible with life, DEAD fetuses (they still are counted as elective abortions, as opposed to spontaneous abortions or miscarriages)

That is why we supported his work. These were desperate women who had no where else to turn, and the view of them wantonly deciding to destroy their children is not the reality.

And partial birth abortion? The procedure was designed so parents who lost a child due to health reasons, incompatible with life, or that it would kill the mother to bring to term... would be able to hold an intact child and grieve, with the back of the head covered up.

[rosa]

Charis, Arietty - for me the focus is on the mother's freedom of choice. You saw I stood up for Carrie's right to make that choice in the forums (and you wouldn't have seen it, but I did so in other forums where people were talking about prosecuting people for choosing homebirth.) That doesn't mean I agree with anyone's reproductive choices, just that I think they have the right to make them.

The question in cases like Carrie's, and what Vyckie brought up about her own former writings about birth, is whether she was pressured into making that choice. Which is just as much an issue with abortions and other reproductive decisions. Bad medical advice and coersion by religious & family authorities (and legal authorities, as in the whole stupid midwives/stupid doctors thread here) is a problem on either side - or on any side I should say, since it's not just birth/abortion but also birth control, forced sterilization, and other family planning issues.

And of course there is a tragedy to a miscarriage of a wanted child, completely aside from whether you think a fetus is a person with rights. There's also a tragedy to losing just the dream of a child to infertility, or contact with a grandchild or stepchild through family strife.

I don't claim to speak for every pro-choice person, people can have different bundles of beliefs (as with "pro-life" people - some are just antiabortion and in favor of things like capital punishment or even shooting doctors, I'm not going to assume one belief implies all the others.) But for me the right of a person to their own bodily autonomy is absolute.

[sargassosea]

Apologies to Rebecca for engaging the current topic in her space -

I have had 2 abortions and have 1 child.

The circumstances which surround all three of my pregnancies have no bearing on the point I wish to make.

That point is: that as a woman in the US, I had (and still do have) the legal right to make decisions about me.

That is all.

*Edit for wrong name...

[ambrosia]

Aug 6, 2009 7:34:58 GMT -5 @charis said:

Hi Rebecca,

At the risk of drawing ire, I confess that I've l felt out of place and backed off too. (snip)For me it's the pro-abortion atmosphere. Here, a late term abortion doctor is a "martyr". (not that I would EVER support killing him, mind you, but I judge there must be something pretty cold and heartless about a man who can do this every day for money) and it seems double minded to me to be so upset and concerned about the gestating baby who dies or is put at risk by the QF mother's lack of medical intervention, while lauding as saintly a doctor who would kill the same baby for hire.

I think there is quite a lot of purposely-generated misunderstanding about the general pro-choice position by the other side. I can't really call them "pro-life" as they would like to call themselves when high-profile movement leaders can celebrate a murder.

I also don't claim to speak for any other pro choice person, but my experience of the ones I do know is definitely not "pro abortion". In a perfectly sane world, the people who are against abortion would prevent a large number of them by supporting reproductive education and choices. Instead many anti-abortion spokesmen (primarily) seem to be more interested in controlling womens' lives.

While I may question whether having 8 or 15 or however many children is a truly responsible position, I am not about to demand family size laws. Those of us who have had to resort to abortion deserve the same respect for control of our bodies. It is not a decision that is taken lightly or frivolously, and it is insulting and demeaning to imply that it is.

(edited for spelling!!)

[kisekileia]

I'm sorry if anything I said in the threads mentioned here made people uncomfortable.

[charis]

Rather than continue derailing Rebecca's thread, I started a new topic:

Abortion: QF minded women are pro-life

[arietty]

Rebecca I get the impression you thought you had to defend yourself from my post about owning lifestyle choices. These are my lifestyle choices I was writing about, not yours. My children range from adult to toddler, I have now had 5 teenagers and believe me any lifestyle choices you make for them as small children you hear ALL about when they reach teen years. This by the way is a good thing--I encourage them to feel they can talk over stuff that bothered them. As children get older the experience of being different and having less than their peers is something they face and want to discuss. Sure I could say (and DID in the past) "look at Africa, no one has their own rooms or cheese dip snacks for recess" but that just invalidates their own experiences of being the odd kid with less stuff. Of course I want my children to grow in such a way that they have perspective and that includes world poverty but a child's experience is often a narrow one and they see and feel what is immediate to them. When I was in my abusive marriage and living in a shack (it was truly the worst and smallest house I have ever seen in my life) I often "closed my eyes and thought of Africa" and came away humbled and grateful for what I had. What I was really doing was invalidating my experience and disassociating myself from it as a way of coping because nothing was ever going to get me and my many children out of that shack.

Every family makes choices and we can tell our children to suck it up or congratulate ourselves on making better choices than our neighbor (nutrition etc..). But MY children, as they came into adolescence, became quite vocal about how MY choices had effected them socially. It really would do our relationship no good for me to say, "your diet was MUCH healthier, those cheese snacks are empty calories!" I mean, they know that. I have explained nutrition to them. Their talking about the effect my choices had on them was not about nutrition, it was about being a weird family who couldn't and didn't have stuff other people had. Just because this doesn't bother me (I'm an adult with little if any concern about social expectations) doesn't mean it hasn't effected them.

Of course I did not say, "Oh I am sorry I had these little brothers and that you have to share your room with them and don't have a lovely room by yourself like your friends."

And I also did not say, "Oh but you know whole families in Africa share one room, you have MUCH more than other people in this world."

I did say, "I am sorry. I know it was hard on you to not have any personal space like that and to visit your friends houses and see that they had their own rooms. I am really sorry and I am/have been working on making this change for you."

I had to own that my choices did effect my children. It doesn't mean those choices were always wrong or that if I could go back in time I would unmake them. It means only that I chose stuff that suited MY idea of what life and God was about and that these choices affected other people in a way that was not always a positive experience for them.